With the »resent disastrous ; electoral position of the Labour Party there is a mv,od growing among some sections of the left that needs to be discussed ad ventilated. This mood could be summed as 'if the Labour Party is smished et the next election, this will be a good thing because it will leave the way clear for revolutionaries'. Such assumptions or moods neei to be discussed in all their implications.
Let us first begin by putting into question the basic assumption, i.e. the deveat of tke Labour Party at the next general election. Whilst as Marxitits we shoyld not fall into the error of accepting all the findings and conclusions of the psephologists, we should neither ignore them. Des*site the prt,sent situation all the electoral cards are stacked in favovg of the Gov arnment (any government), Moreover, given the possibility ‘@ a favourable turn in the economic situation this year, it is still not absolutel*: certain that Labour will go down to defeat in 1970 or '7l.
However, let us grant that it will be very difficult to climb out of such a catas‘srophic run of by-elections, and the devastating local election results of last year. Let us also grant that it would be hard to find a comparable f,ituation as has been shown in the opinion polls over the last few months. Granted all this, the situation does indeed look very gloomy for the Latour Party. But does it look so much better for Marxists?
It is tirgued that the Social Democrats act as a brake on the development of the revolutionary process by containing opposition within the general framework of capitalism; therefore all that is necessary is to smash these institutional blocks to clear the way for the revolutionary party. Such simplistic thinking has resulted in the creation of more abortive groups on the left than perhaps any other single factor. Insufficient consideration has been given to analyse the ways in which reformist organisations maintain their dominance, and why the many attempts to build a revolutionary party have failed. It is quite insufficient simply to launch a frontal attack on the Labour Party and proclaim the new revolutionary party, or indeed the revolution. The truth is that the stability of capitalism depends not only on the presence of transmission belts of bourgeois hegemony such as the Labour Party, but also on the absence of correct revolutionary politics.
Let us return to the question of the next general election. If the Labour Party suffers a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Tory Party, what are the likely consequences and implications? These rather depend on the actual situation. Let us recall a few historical facts about the 1931 debacle. Firstly, in terms of seats the Labour Party was almost wiped out, plummeting from 287 to 52. But in terms of votes it only lost two million compared with 1929, and still had more votes than in 1924 when it formed its first administration.
A similar situation could arise at the next election, i.e. Labour could be reduced to a rump in the Commons without necessarily losing an equal proportion of its votes. The vagaries of the sytem always
over magnify the victory of the winners in terms of seats. But should the Labour Party not only suffer a great loss of seats but also of votes, this would present a rather different situation. In the first eventuality it is true that it would mean a return to a more reactionary government, and a more right-wing climate, but the Tories would still have to tread somewhat warily; although there can be no doubt they would extend many of the avenues opened up by Wilson, e.g. new anti-strike laws. But in the second case, one would expect to see far more draconian measures, and the institution of an authoritarian state, with all that that entails. This means that far from there being a danger of a Powellite cum fascist. regime- which would entail extra-parliamentary organs to smash the trade unions - there would be en emasculation and shackling of the unions in a perfectly legal and 'democratic' manner, no doubt all done to the tune of 'Land of Hope and Glory'.
This result, for Marxists, would be devastating. Not as some fondly hope a situation of euphoria. Can anyone seriously think that at that stage there would automatically result a swing by large sections of the working class behind one or other of the sects of the British left? (It is noteworthy that even the tremendous upsurge in the working class activity in May '68 in France, proved incapable of sloughing off the dominance of reformist parties, in spite of the clear-cut betrayal of the leadership. )
Let us re-examine the situation. It is prefectly true that there are many elements present today which make the social and political situation unstable. These elements can be enumerated, 1) a general tendency for western capitalism’ secular boom to slow down, 2) the re-emergence of significant numbers of unemployed, 3) a radicalisation among large sections of youth, 4) widespread disillusionment with the present Labour Government, 5) attacks on trade unions which evoke partial responses. The French events indicated that a combination of such, and allied, factors can generate an explosive situation. But what were the crippling factors? They were (and are) the absence of an organic cadre or vanguard with a clearly defined strategy, the low level of consciousness among even the most militant sections of the orking class and the lack of even a sizable section of the working class willing to accept the leadership of such Marxist revolutionaries as there are around.
In sum, this means that even now the working class is dominated by bourgeois idelogy. Only at rare, split second, intervals,has there been a gleam of light to suggest that this is being broken. In the large majority the working class is still wedded to seeking solutions within the given framework. Those sections of the class who today have: turned away from Labour have done so to become apathetic, indifferent or downright cynical towards politics. There is no evidence as yet that any appreciable section has turned towards revolutionary ideas. On the contrary: Wokerg who decide that there is no difference between the parties are likely to go even further to the right in their search for solutions. Thus we get vicious right-wing movements of the type of Wallace and Powell. The existence of such movements indicate a minor crisis in the system, but can
Be
i
only be viewed by alarm by all those except fatalists who believe there are such things as the 'final crisis of capitalism', which then inevitably brings socialism in its wake. Such primitive apocalyptian visions miss out a whole series of mediations required to resolve such crises in & socialist direction. The absence of such necessary mediations at all levels both ideological and organisational, is quite itrightening.
This is why we say that a catastrophic defeat along the lines of the second varient outlined above could be devestating for Marxists. Only those who are suffering from scme sort of ‘third period! delirium could think otherwise. To assume that the installation of an authoritarian Tory Government would pave the way for the creation of a revolutionary party is to indulge in daydreams. The German Communist Party in 1933 thought that after Hitler came to power and thad shot his bolt! their turn would come, and it did - in concentration camps. Moreover, the historical evidence we have points to the fact that the only Communist Parties of any significance that were built after 1919 were those that arose out of a split in the main working class parties and trade unions, i.e. they were grounded in the existing labour movements. They were led, in the main, by men who already had mass influence and following. The Communist Parties that were created by sewing together a collection of sects never got off the ground. One has only to look at the history of the C.P.G.B. The only time it began to play a meaningful role was during the twenties with the growth of the M-nority Movement and the Labour Left Movement. When it destroyed these it destoyed its chance to emerge from its sectarian existence.
Is the situation hopeless then? Far from it! The next few years could be very fruitful if Marxists learn to grapple with the situation-correctly. We said earlier that the reason why Social Democracy dominates within the working class rests partially on the absence of correct revolutionary politics. In effect this means that it is fruitless for Marxists to now indulge in an orgy of verbaldenunciations of the Labour Party, from a standpoint not understood by the working class. The way forward will only be found by supplanting bourgeois ideology in a positive and meaningful manner. Ernest Mandel summed up the question very well when he wrote -
"The capitalist'rationalisation', the speed up, the advance in
automation, neo-capitalist economic 'progamming', and the con-
centration and accelerated fusion of enterprises all tend to shift
the centre of gravity in the class struggle from disputes over the
division of newly created value between capital and labour towards
disputes over control and organisation of work and of the process
itself. This is why the spread of the campaign for workers' con-
trol among the shop stewards in Great Sritain assumes a critica
importance..."
It is precisely by taking the struggle into those areas which least favour capitalist ideology that we can expect to make the greatest advances. Such carpaigns need not, and do not, ignore wage questions so much as re-focus them.
It is through such work that the level of consciousness can be raised for whole sections of workers, and an ideological vanguard created that has solid and enduring roots in the working class.
If out of the defeat of the Labour Government there emerges such a vanguard it will be because Marxists have engaged and convinced workers in Glasgow, Wigan,Birmingham ete that they should direct and control,not merely their 'free' time, but also that part of their lives vital to them as workers. It will not emerge from defeating Michael Foot or other weary Tribunites in debate. Revolutionary rhetoric will not serve our purpose, only a slow, patient elaboration of basic ideas and practice, (which takes into account the existing modalities of bourgeois hegemony presently structuring working class consciousness), can succeed.
To sum up. It is very dangerous to naively expect that the self induced collapse of one institutional prison of the-working class will lead to the workers dropping into our laps. The bourgeoisie has more, and worse, alternatives ready to hand. The urgent task is to build a movement capable of positively supplanting the Labour Party, before the ruling class organises itself to inflict an historical defeat on the working class, the electoral moment of which could take the form of a massive defeat of Labour at the hands of the Tories, boosting ruling class self-confidence and increasing the existing (ex hypothesis) demoralisation and isolation of the militant workers.
March 1969 continued from page 21
15. These provisional laws - if justified in practice - along with the findings of the National Business Council, will be taken into consideration for preparation of legislation on the nature of socialist enterprise. The relations of union organisations in the forms vis-a-vis collective bodies for democratic control of the enterprise and of management will be regulated.
One can only proceed to changes in methods of organisation in firms after long reflection, fully respecting, in the course of these changes, the principles employed and adopted by the government (Government decree of April 25th 1968. No.128)
16. It is possible to proceed to the provisional installations of Workers' Councilsin firms before the publication of the law on socidlist enterprise, after consultation with and in agreement with, the body which in conformity with present regulations, has the right to appoint and dismiss company directors.
The Workers! Councils can be established successively in three stages according to the firms capacity, i.e. on July lst 1968, October Ist 1968, and January lst 1969. Prague June 6th 1968